Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

Would you link to a result here?Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.

Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak

jeannot is correct on that score, and certainly the concept of an "explosion" - which is a poorly defined concept at best - doesn't have a lot of use in the field of paleoanthropology (except in terms of the "creative explosion" which was current back in the 1960's but now is little used by paleoanthropologists).

By the way that picture that you claim models earth's processes is horribly inaccurate and leaves out quite a bit. You might try something like this:

Which, at least, is much more accurate.

Though much more limited in scope than my image that is a very nice example of order from disorder but my argument with Jeannot had to do with critter diversity. Now be aware that some seem to insist that I am simply referring population explosions that isnt the case either.

Googling the geological eras + the key word "explosion" will bring up a plethora of info on this interesting paleobiology.

Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.

In some instances after selong separations or bottle necks like with the donkey, a critter will experience deletions due to inbreeding and will no longer retain a good ability to reproduce fertile offspring with its ancestor. However, no significant changes take place, especially on par to the vast differences between an ape and human

Actually, the differences between apes and humans are not that vast...

To say that the earth follows uniformitarianism but cosmological forces do not is denying that cosmological processes effect the earth, Which is pseudoscience again. but then you also conform to a belief that the earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again

If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts

sigh... OK, I'll give you this one... there is a Uniformitarianism in terms of natural philosophy and one in geology.

Because you obviously don't have a clue, the reason that the Earth's rotation is slowing is this big ass object that hangs over our heads all the time... you may have heard of it... the moon? It's gravitationally coupled to the Earth. It imparts some of it's motion on the Earth and the Earth imparts some of its motion on the moon. Since the Earth is much more massive than the moon, the Earth slows only slightly, while the moon speeds up slightly more. Because of some fundamental laws of motion, when the moon increases in velocity, it recedes from us ever so slightly. [Note that this is a very basic explanation and should not be argued against. The math can be found here, as well as evidence for all of the above. Only arguments from that material will be accepted.]

Also note that this concept has been known since [URL=E Halley (1695), "Some Account of the Ancient State of the City of Palmyra, with Short Remarks upon the Inscriptions Found there", Phil. Trans., vol.19 (1695-1697), pages 160-175; esp. at pages 174-175.]1695.[/URL] The correctly understood answer to the question of why this happens was established in the 1860s.

Given that, I can understand someone who argues this kind of point may not have ever heard of it. Of course, taking 3 seconds to look up Wikipedia (while not an authoritative source, I generally consider it useful enough for these discussions) and then following the links in the 'references' section for a more complete understanding.

If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts

Assertion. Cite evidence.

Define robust in terms of early man.Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern manShow evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time

as well as the rest of the work you havedefine homozygousdefine heterozygousdescribe the Cambrian explosiondefine symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)define hyper-inflationdescribe the endocrine notion of phenotype selectiondefine phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)define speciesshow that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over timeEvidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.Evidence that the magnetic field is weakeningEvidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 yearsEvidence that bones are becoming less dense.

Thus, you admit there is no uniformitarianism

I made it clear that I made a typographical error and humans are becoming less robust with time but I guess y'all need your straws

Plus, you insist that I go to wiki for definitions yet you cant even bother with looking up things like endocrine system, nucleosynthesis, human robustness, ect ect..

Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.

In some instances after selong separations or bottle necks like with the donkey, a critter will experience deletions due to inbreeding and will no longer retain a good ability to reproduce fertile offspring with its ancestor. However, no significant changes take place, especially on par to the vast differences between an ape and human

Actually, the differences between apes and humans are not that vast...

Only superficially in some areas

Google "scurvy", Tardbucket.

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Again, if you are willing, I will teach you. I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks, evolution 3-4 months. This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.

So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.

Speaking of double standards, y'all still havnt answered my question above and I guess would rather focus on eunuchs, hairless dogs, and wiki definitions rather than comparing proven Endocrine system adaptation with your natural mutation selection

Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

Would you link to a result here?Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.

Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak

jeannot is correct on that score, and certainly the concept of an "explosion" - which is a poorly defined concept at best - doesn't have a lot of use in the field of paleoanthropology (except in terms of the "creative explosion" which was current back in the 1960's but now is little used by paleoanthropologists).

By the way that picture that you claim models earth's processes is horribly inaccurate and leaves out quite a bit. You might try something like this:

Which, at least, is much more accurate.

Though much more limited in scope than my image that is a very nice example of order from disorder but my argument with Jeannot had to do with critter diversity. Now be aware that some seem to insist that I am simply referring population explosions that isnt the case either.

Googling the geological eras + the key word "explosion" will bring up a plethora of info on this interesting paleobiology.

I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .But I accept your challange! Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...

--------------Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Again, if you are willing, I will teach you. I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks, evolution 3-4 months. This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.

So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.

Speaking of double standards, y'all still havnt answered my question above and I guess would rather focus on eunuchs, hairless dogs, and wiki definitions rather than comparing proven Endocrine system adaptation with your natural mutation selection

i want you to focus on hairless eunuchs. some more. tell me, are hairless eunuchs now less robust than they were in fossil men?

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Again, if you are willing, I will teach you. I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks, evolution 3-4 months. This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.

So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.

Speaking of double standards, y'all still havnt answered my question above and I guess would rather focus on eunuchs, hairless dogs, and wiki definitions rather than comparing proven Endocrine system adaptation with your natural mutation selection

The only scientist I know of who gave a role in evolution to the endocrine system is Carleton Coon, and his views on the subject are more than a little bit racist. Also, Schwartz's work on heat shock proteins. So do, please, elaborate for us.

--------------Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Please provide an example and cite the evidence that you used to draw this conclusion.

Note that "It is complex." and "It looks designed." are not evidence. They are cop-outs.

I can provide dozens of examples of insanely complex structures and systems that were not designed. I can also provide systems and structures that look as if they were designed, but they were not designed.

If you make the claim that they really are designed, then you are making the claim that everything was designed.

There are designs and derivatives of design but even the derivatives are implemented into the grand scheme of things. Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles [/quote]

OK, you have got to be a Poe.

Assertion, evidence please.

BTW: 'poo' as you so eloquently describe it, is material that is indigestible by whatever organism is ejecting it. Interestingly, many things are indigestible, because the organism has lost the ability to digest that material due to mutation. Oops.

[quote][/quote]

Ok I'll play your game

Poo is important for many food chains and cycles. In fact, I used to use guano and worm poo by the tons in some very elaborate gardens.

deny what, you credulous git? that the cambrian explosion wasn't really an explosion?

i realize you are probably trying to sound stupid here as part of your shtick but i think you are overselling it a tad. try backing off, mentioning hitler, more perhaps something about moral relativism, less about actual facts. the dance will last longer. just a thought luv

Then try to prove that it wasnt an explosion of benthic diversity

what, is "explosion of diversity" somehow supposed to make more sense than "cambrian explosion"

psst forastero we know fundie idiots have trouble with the difference between literal and figurative but i'll give you a hint. a blow job doesn't mean taping an M-90 to your balls

i've said it before, i'll say it again, more hitler means jesus died for our sins stuff

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts

I am sure you have studied up on that, a great deal.

Depends on how one defines robust. I once made the mistake of agreeing with a creationist that modern humans are less robust than their evolutionary predecessors. I thought he was using the term in its anthropological sense, which is true. He, however, had a slightly different meaning for the word robust. More in line with this:

However, the claim that many animals are less robust (in the scientific sense of the term) is false.

--------------Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .But I accept your challange! Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...

Again, if you are willing, I will teach you. I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks, evolution 3-4 months. This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.

So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.

Speaking of double standards, y'all still havnt answered my question above and I guess would rather focus on eunuchs, hairless dogs, and wiki definitions rather than comparing proven Endocrine system adaptation with your natural mutation selection

The only scientist I know of who gave a role in evolution to the endocrine system is Carleton Coon, and his views on the subject are more than a little bit racist. Also, Schwartz's work on heat shock proteins. So do, please, elaborate for us.

Wrong again. Carlton Coon and his ilk hated the thought of purposeful adaptation and ID. He was a neodarwinist who like the Darwinist believed in the preservation of favored races via exploitation, eugenics, genocide, war, etc etc ...

If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts

I am sure you have studied up on that, a great deal.

Depends on how one defines robust. I once made the mistake of agreeing with a creationist that modern humans are less robust than their evolutionary predecessors. I thought he was using the term in its anthropological sense, which is true. He, however, had a slightly different meaning for the word robust. More in line with this:

However, the claim that many animals are less robust (in the scientific sense of the term) is false.

Wrong again. Pick most any critter I i'll show you a more robust ancestor

I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .But I accept your challange! Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...

Are you sure you are familiar with this paleobiology because to the discerning mind, Jeannot's link is about population explosions ? [URL=http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers/pubs/Rogers-E-49-608.pdf]http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf]http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....df]

Ha ha... I see that you decided to argue about the one geologic period that I hadnt mentioned in my quote below

I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .But I accept your challange! Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...

If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts

I am sure you have studied up on that, a great deal.

Depends on how one defines robust. I once made the mistake of agreeing with a creationist that modern humans are less robust than their evolutionary predecessors. I thought he was using the term in its anthropological sense, which is true. He, however, had a slightly different meaning for the word robust. More in line with this:

However, the claim that many animals are less robust (in the scientific sense of the term) is false.

Wrong again. Pick most any critter I i'll show you a more robust ancestor

Okay, define robust.

--------------Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .But I accept your challange! Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...

Exactly what I said, jeanot was talking about population demographics, you were not. As I said in the context of Pleistocene anthropology explosion is always used in the context of populations. I did google all the other periods but, found nothing that supports your point.

--------------Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.